Performance Report PRIMERGY RX4770 M3

Transcription

White Paper  Performance Report PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
White Paper
FUJITSU Server PRIMERGY
Performance Report PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
This document contains a summary of the benchmarks executed for the FUJITSU Server
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3.
The PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 performance data are compared with the data of other
PRIMERGY models and discussed. In addition to the benchmark results, an explanation
has been included for each benchmark and for the benchmark environment.
Version
1.1
2016-09-08
http://ts.fujitsu.com/primergy
Page 1 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Contents
Document history ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Technical data .................................................................................................................................................... 3
SPECcpu2006 .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Disk I/O: Performance of RAID controllers ......................................................................................................... 9
SAP SD ............................................................................................................................................................. 16
OLTP-2 ............................................................................................................................................................. 19
TPC-E ............................................................................................................................................................... 23
vServCon .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
VMmark V2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
STREAM ........................................................................................................................................................... 38
LINPACK .......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Literature ........................................................................................................................................................... 43
Contact ............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Document history
Version 1.0 (2016-07-21)
New:








Technical data
SPECcpu2006
®
®
Measurements with Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family
Disk I/O: Performance of RAID controllers
Measurements with “PRAID CP400i”, “PRAID EP400i” and “PRAID EP420i” controllers
OLTP-2
®
®
Results for Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family
TPC-E
Measurement with Xeon E7-8890 v4
VMmark V2
“Performance Only“ Measurements with Xeon E7-8890 v4
„Performance with Server Power“ Measurement with Xeon E7-8890 v4
STREAM
®
®
LINPACK
®
®
Version 1.1 (2016-09-08)
New:


SAP SD
Certification number 2016036
vServCon
®
®
Results for Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family
Page 2 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Technical data
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Decimal prefixes according to the SI standard are used for measurement units in this white paper (e.g. 1 GB
9
30
= 10 bytes). In contrast, these prefixes should be interpreted as binary prefixes (e.g. 1 GB = 2 bytes) for
the capacities of caches and memory modules. Separate reference will be made to any further exceptions
where applicable.
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Form factor
Rack server
Chipset
Intel C602 Chipset
Number of sockets
4
Number of processors orderable
2 or 4
Processor type
Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family
Number of memory slots
96
Maximum memory configuration
6 TB
Onboard LAN controller
2 × 10 Gbit/s
9 × PCI-Express 3.0 x8
2 × PCI-Express 3.0 x16
12
®
®
PCI slots
Max. number of internal hard disks
®
Cores
Processor
Threads
Processors (since system release)
Cache
QPI
Speed
Rated
Frequency
Max.
Turbo
Frequency
Max.
Memory
Frequency
TDP
[MB]
[GT/s]
[Ghz]
[Ghz]
[MHz]
[Watt]
Xeon E7-8893 v4
4
8
60
9.60
3.20
3.50
1866
140
Xeon E7-4809 v4
8
16
20
6.40
2.10
entf.
1866
115
Xeon E7-4820 v4
10
20
25
6.40
2.00
entf.
1866
115
Xeon E7-8891 v4
10
20
60
9.60
2.80
3.50
1866
165
Xeon E7-4830 v4
14
28
35
8.00
2.00
2.80
1866
115
Xeon E7-4850 v4
16
32
40
8.00
2.10
2.80
1866
115
Xeon E7-8860 v4
18
36
45
9.60
2.20
3.20
1866
140
Xeon E7-8867 v4
18
36
45
9.60
2.40
3.30
1866
165
Xeon E7-8870 v4
20
40
50
9.60
2.10
3.00
1866
140
Xeon E7-8880 v4
22
44
55
9.60
2.20
3.30
1866
150
Xeon E7-8890 v4
24
48
60
9.60
2.20
3.40
1866
165
All the processors that can be ordered with the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3, apart from Xeon E7-4809 v4 and
®
Xeon E7-4820 v4, support Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0. This technology allows you to operate the
processor with higher frequencies than the nominal frequency. Listed in the processor table is "Max. Turbo
Frequency" for the theoretical frequency maximum with only one active core per processor. The maximum
Page 3 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
frequency that can actually be achieved depends on the number of active cores, the current consumption,
electrical power consumption and the temperature of the processor.
As a matter of principle Intel does not guarantee that the maximum turbo frequency will be reached. This is
related to manufacturing tolerances, which result in a variance regarding the performance of various
examples of a processor model. The range of the variance covers the entire scope between the nominal
frequency and the maximum turbo frequency.
The turbo functionality can be set via BIOS option. Fujitsu generally recommends leaving the "Turbo Mode"
option set at the standard setting "Enabled", as performance is substantially increased by the higher
frequencies. However, since the higher frequencies depend on general conditions and are not always
guaranteed, it can be advantageous to disable the "Turbo Mode" option for application scenarios with
intensive use of AVX instructions and a high number of instructions per clock unit, as well as for those that
require constant performance or lower electrical power consumption.
Registered
ECC
16
1
4
2400


32GB (2x16GB) 1Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
32
1
4
2400


64
2
4
2400


128GB (2x64GB) 4Rx4 DDR4-2400 LR ECC
128
4
4
2400


Power supplies (since system release)
Load reduced
Memory module
Low voltage
Ranks
Frequency [MHz]
Capacity [GB]
Bit width of the
memory chips
Memory modules (since system release)

Max. number
Power Supply Module 1200W w/o power cord
4
Power Supply Module 1600W w/o power cord
4
Some components may not be available in all countries or sales regions.
Detailed technical information is available in the data sheet PRIMERGY RX4770 M3.
Page 4 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
SPECcpu2006
Benchmark description
SPECcpu2006 is a benchmark which measures the system efficiency with integer and floating-point
operations. It consists of an integer test suite (SPECint2006) containing 12 applications and a floating-point
test suite (SPECfp2006) containing 17 applications. Both test suites are extremely computing-intensive and
concentrate on the CPU and the memory. Other components, such as Disk I/O and network, are not
measured by this benchmark.
SPECcpu2006 is not tied to a special operating system. The benchmark is available as source code and is
compiled before the actual measurement. The used compiler version and their optimization settings also
affect the measurement result.
SPECcpu2006 contains two different performance measurement methods: the first method (SPECint2006 or
SPECfp2006) determines the time which is required to process single task. The second method
(SPECint_rate2006 or SPECfp_rate2006) determines the throughput, i.e. the number of tasks that can be
handled in parallel. Both methods are also divided into two measurement runs, “base” and “peak” which
differ in the use of compiler optimization. When publishing the results the base values are always used; the
peak values are optional.
Benchmark
Arithmetics
Type
Compiler
optimization
SPECint2006
integer
peak
aggressive
SPECint_base2006
integer
base
conservative
SPECint_rate2006
integer
peak
aggressive
SPECint_rate_base2006
integer
base
conservative
SPECfp2006
floating point
peak
aggressive
SPECfp_base2006
floating point
base
conservative
SPECfp_rate2006
floating point
peak
aggressive
SPECfp_rate_base2006
floating point
base
conservative
Measurement
result
Application
Speed
single-threaded
Throughput
multi-threaded
Speed
single-threaded
Throughput
multi-threaded
The measurement results are the geometric average from normalized ratio values which have been
determined for individual benchmarks. The geometric average - in contrast to the arithmetic average - means
that there is a weighting in favour of the lower individual results. Normalized means that the measurement is
how fast is the test system compared to a reference system. Value “1” was defined for the
SPECint_base2006-, SPECint_rate_base2006, SPECfp_base2006 and SPECfp_rate_base2006 results of
the reference system. For example, a SPECint_base2006 value of 2 means that the measuring system has
handled this benchmark twice as fast as the reference system. A SPECfp_rate_base2006 value of 4 means
that the measuring system has handled this benchmark some 4/[# base copies] times faster than the
reference system. “# base copies” specify how many parallel instances of the benchmark have been
executed.
Not every SPECcpu2006 measurement is submitted by us for publication at SPEC. This is why the SPEC
web pages do not have every result. As we archive the log files for all measurements, we can prove the
correct implementation of the measurements at any time.
Page 5 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Benchmark environment
System Under Test (SUT)
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
4 processors of Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family
Memory
16 × 32GB (2x16GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
®
®
Software
BIOS settings
Energy Performance = Performance
Xeon E7-4809 v4, Xeon E7-4820 v4, Xeon E7-4830 v4, Xeon E7-8891 v4, Xeon E7-8893 v4:
COD Enable = Disabled
Home Dir Snoop with IVT- Style OSB Enable = Enabled
Alle others:
COD Enable = Enabled
Home Dir Snoop with IVT- Style OSB Enable = Disabled
Operating system
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 12 SP1 (x86_64)
Operating system
settings
echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
Compiler
C/C++: Version 16.0.0.101 of Intel C++ Studio XE for Linux
Fortran: Version 16.0.0.101 of Intel Fortran Studio XE for Linux
Page 6 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Benchmark results
SPECfp_rate2006
827
844
1160
982
1000
1290
1150
1170
2140
2250
1680
1710
4
1950
2040
1550
1580
Xeon E7-4850 v4
4
2330
2440
1740
1780
Xeon E7-8860 v4
4
2870
2990
2080
2130
Xeon E7-8867 v4
4
2950
3080
2130
2180
Xeon E7-8870 v4
4
3070
3200
2170
2230
Xeon E7-8880 v4
4
3320
3450
2260
2320
Xeon E7-8890 v4
4
3570
3710
2360
2430
Xeon E7-8893 v4
4
944
1000
Xeon E7-4809 v4
4
1100
Xeon E7-4820 v4
4
1240
Xeon E7-8891 v4
4
Xeon E7-4830 v4
SPECint_rate2006
Processor
Number of processors
In terms of processors the benchmark result depends primarily on the size of the processor cache, the
support for Hyper-Threading, the number of processor cores and on the processor frequency. The number of
cores, which are loaded by the benchmark, determines the maximum processor frequency that can be
achieved.
th
On 6 June 2016 the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 with four Xeon E7-8890 v4 processors was
ranked first in the 4-socket systems category for the benchmark SPECint_rate_base2006. The
current results can be found at http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results.
Page 7 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
The two diagrams below illustrate the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 in comparison to its
predecessor PRIMERGY RX4770 M2, in their respective most performant configuration.
SPECcpu2006: integer performance
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 vs. PRIMERGY RX4770 M2
3710
4000
3570
2780
3500
3000
2700
2500
2000
1500
1000
SPECint_rate2006
500
0
PRIMERGY RX4770 M2 PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
4 × Xeon E7-8890 v3
4 × Xeon E7-8890 v4
SPECcpu2006: floating-point performance
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 vs. PRIMERGY RX4770 M2
2430
2500
1980
2360
1930
2000
1500
1000
SPECfp_rate2006
500
0
PRIMERGY RX4770 M2 PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
4 × Xeon E7-8890 v3
4 × Xeon E7-8890 v4
Page 8 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Disk I/O: Performance of RAID controllers
Performance measurements of disk subsystems for PRIMERGY and PRIMEQUEST servers are used to
assess their performance and enable a comparison of the different storage connections for these servers. As
standard, these performance measurements are carried out with a defined measurement method, which
models the accesses of real application scenarios on the basis of specifications.
The essential specifications are:
 Share of random accesses / sequential accesses
 Share of read / write access types
 Block size (kB)
 Number of parallel accesses (# of outstanding I/Os)
A given value combination of these specifications is known as “load profile”. The following five standard load
profiles can be allocated to typical application scenarios:
Standard load
profile
Access
Type of access
read
write
Block size
[kB]
Application
File copy
random
50%
50%
64
Copying of files
File server
random
67%
33%
64
File server
Database
random
67%
33%
8
Database (data transfer)
Mail server
Streaming
sequential
100%
0%
64
Database (log file),
Data backup;
Video streaming (partial)
Restore
sequential
0%
100%
64
Restoring of files
In order to model applications that access in parallel with a different load intensity the "# of Outstanding I/Os"
is increased from 1 to 512 (in steps to the power of two).
The measurements of this document are based on these standard load profiles.
The main results of a measurement are:



Throughput [MB/s]
Transactions [IO/s]
Latency [ms]
Throughput in megabytes per second
Transaction rate in I/O operations per second
Average response time in ms
The data throughput has established itself as the normal measurement variable for sequential load profiles,
whereas the measurement variable “transaction rate” is mostly used for random load profiles with their small
block sizes. Data throughput and transaction rate are directly proportional to each other and can be
transferred to each other according to the formula
Data throughput [MB/s]
= Transaction rate [IO/s] × Block size [MB]
Transaction rate [IO/s]
= Data throughput [MB/s] / Block size [MB]
12
This section specifies capacities of storage media on a basis of 10 (1 TB = 10 bytes) while all other
20
capacities, file sizes, block sizes and throughputs are specified on a basis of 2 (1 MB/s = 2 bytes/s).
All the details of the measurement method and the basics of disk I/O performance are described in the white
paper “Basics of Disk I/O Performance”.
Page 9 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
All the measurement results discussed in this chapter were determined using the hardware and software
components listed below:
Hardware
Processor
4 × Xeon E7-8867 v4 @ 2.40GHz
Controller
1 × “PRAID CP400i”, “PRAID EP400i”, “PRAID EP420i”:
Driver name: megasas2.sys, Driver version: 6.706.06
Firmware package: 24.7.0-0061
Storage media
SSDs
HDDs
Toshiba PX02SMF040
HGST HUC156045CSS204
Software
BIOS settings
Intel Virtualization Technology = Disabled
VT-d = Disabled
Utilization Profile = Unbalanced
CPU C6 Report = Disabled
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard
Operating system
settings
Choose or customize a power plan: High performance
For the processes that create disk I/Os: set the AFFINITY to the CPU node to which the
PCIe slot of the RAID controller is connected
Administration software
ServerView RAID Manager 6.2.1
Benchmark version
3.0
Stripe size
Controller default
Measuring tool
Iometer 1.1.0
Measurement area
The first 10% of the usable LBA area is used for sequential accesses; the next 25% for
random accesses.
File system
raw
Total number of Iometer
workers
1
Alignment of Iometer
accesses
Aligned to whole multiples of 4096 bytes
Some components may not be available in all countries / sales regions.
Page 10 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Benchmark results
The results presented here are designed to help you choose the right solution from the various configuration
options of the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 in the light of disk-I/O performance. Various combinations of RAID
controllers and storage media will be analyzed below. Information on the selection of storage media
themselves is to be found in the section “Disk I/O: Performance of storage media”.
Hard disks
The hard disks are the first essential component. If there is a reference below to “hard disks”, this is meant
as the generic term for HDDs (“hard disk drives”, in other words conventional hard disks) and SSDs (“solid
state drives”, i.e. non-volatile electronic storage media).
Mixed drive configurations of SAS and SATA hard disks in one system are permitted, unless they are
excluded in the configurator for special hard disk types.
More detailed performance statements about hard disk types are available in the section “Disk I/O:
Performance of storage media” in this performance report.
Model versions
The maximum number of hard disks in the system depends on the system configuration. The following table
lists the essential cases. Only the highest supported version is named for all the interfaces we have dealt
with in this section.
Form
factor
2.5"
Interface
SATA 6G, SAS 12G
Connection
type
Number of PCIe
controllers
Maximum number
of hard disks
direct
1
8
Page 11 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
RAID controller
In addition to the hard disks the RAID controller is the second performance-determining key component. In
the case of these controllers the “modular RAID” concept of the PRIMERGY servers offers a plethora of
options to meet the various requirements of a wide range of different application scenarios.
The following table summarizes the most important features of the available RAID controllers of the
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3. A short alias is specified here for each controller, which is used in the subsequent
list of the performance values.
Controller name
Alias
Cache
Supported
interfaces
In the system
Max. # disks
per controller
FBU
RAID levels
PRAID CP400i
PRAID CP400i
-
SATA 6G
SAS 12G
PCIe 3.0
x8
8 × 2.5"
0, 1, 1E, 5,
10, 50
-
PRAID EP400i
PRAID EP400i
1 GB
SATA 6G
SAS 12G
PCIe 3.0
x8
8 × 2.5"
0, 1, 1E, 5, 6,
10, 50, 60

PRAID EP420i
PRAID EP420i
2 GB
SATA 6G
SAS 12G
PCIe 3.0
x8
8 × 2.5"
0, 1, 1E, 5, 6,
10, 50, 60

System-specific interfaces
The interfaces of a controller in CPU direction (DMI or PCIe) and in the direction of hard disks (SAS or
SATA) have in each case specific limits for data throughput. These limits are listed in the following table. The
minimum of these two values is a definite limit, which cannot be exceeded. This value is highlighted in bold
in the following table.
Controller
alias
Effective in the configuration
PRAID CP400i
8 × SAS 12G
8240 MB/s
8 × PCIe 3.0
6761 MB/s
-
PRAID EP400i
8 × SAS 12G
8240 MB/s
8 × PCIe 3.0
6761 MB/s
-
PRAID EP420i
8 × SAS 12G
8240 MB/s
8 × PCIe 3.0
6761 MB/s
-
# Disk-side
data channels
Limit for
throughput of
disk interface
# CPU-side
data channels
Connection
via
expander
Limit for
throughput of
CPU-side
interface
More details about the RAID controllers of the PRIMERGY systems are available in the white paper “RAID
Controller Performance”.
Page 12 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Settings
In most cases, the cache of HDDs has a great influence on disk-I/O performance. It is frequently regarded as
a security problem in case of power failure and is thus switched off. On the other hand, it was integrated by
hard disk manufacturers for the good reason of increasing the write performance. For performance reasons it
is therefore advisable to enable the hard disk cache. To prevent data loss in case of power failure you are
recommended to equip the system with a UPS.
In the case of controllers with a cache there are several parameters that can be set. The optimal settings can
depend on the RAID level, the application scenario and the type of data medium. In the case of RAID levels
5 and 6 in particular (and the more complex RAID level combinations 50 and 60) it is obligatory to enable the
controller cache for application scenarios with write share. If the controller cache is enabled, the data
temporarily stored in the cache should be safeguarded against loss in case of power failure. Suitable
accessories are available for this purpose (e.g. a FBU).
For the purpose of easy and reliable handling of the settings for RAID controllers and hard disks it is
advisable to use the software “ServerView RAID Manager” that is supplied for the server. All the cache
settings for controllers and hard disks can usually be made en bloc – specifically for the application – by
using the pre-defined modi “Performance”, “Data Protection” or “Fast Path optimum”. The “Performance”
mode ensures the best possible performance settings for the majority of the application scenarios with
HDDs. In connection with the “FastPath” RAID controller option, the “Fast Path optimum” mode should be
selected if maximum transaction rates are to be achieved with SSDs for random accesses with small blocks
(≤ 8 kB, e. g. OLTP operation of databases).
More information about the setting options of the controller cache is available in the white paper “RAID
Controller Performance”.
Performance values
In general, disk-I/O performance of a logical drive depends on the type and number of hard disks, on the
RAID level and on the RAID controller. If the limits of the system-specific interfaces are not exceeded, the
statements on disk-I/O performance are therefore valid for all PRIMERGY systems. This is why all the
performance statements of the document “RAID Controller Performance” also apply for the PRIMERGY
RX4770 M3 if the configurations measured there are also supported by this system.
The performance values of the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 are listed in table form below, specifically for
different RAID levels, access types and block sizes. Substantially different configuration versions are dealt
with separately. The established measurement variables, as already mentioned in the subsection
Benchmark description, are used here. Thus, transaction rate is specified for random accesses and data
throughput for sequential accesses. To avoid any confusion among the measurement units the tables have
been separated for the two access types.
The table cells contain the maximum achievable values. This has three implications: On the one hand hard
disks with optimal performance were used (the components used are described in more detail in the
subsection Benchmark environment). Furthermore, cache settings of controllers and hard disks, which are
optimal for the respective access scenario and the RAID level, are used as a basis. And ultimately each
value is the maximum value for the entire load intensity range (# of outstanding I/Os).
In order to also visualize the numerical values each table cell is highlighted with a horizontal bar, the length
of which is proportional to the numerical value in the table cell. All bars shown in the same scale of length
have the same color. In other words, a visual comparison only makes sense for table cells with the same
colored bars.
Since the horizontal bars in the table cells depict the maximum achievable performance values, they are
shown by the color getting lighter as you move from left to right. The light shade of color at the right end of
the bar tells you that the value is a maximum value and can only be achieved under optimal prerequisites.
The darker the shade becomes as you move to the left, the more frequently it will be possible to achieve the
corresponding value in practice.
Page 13 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
2.5" - Random accesses (maximum performance values in IO/s):
PRAID CP400i
HUC156045CSS204 SAS HDD
PX02SMF040 SAS SSD
PRAID EP400i
PX02SMF040 SAS SSD
PRAID EP420i
PX02SMF040 SAS SSD
Page 14 (44)
SSDs random
64 kB blocks
67% read
[IO/s]
SSDs random
8 kB blocks
67% read
[IO/s]
HDDs random
64 kB blocks
67% read
[IO/s]
RAID level
#Disks
Hard disk
type
RAID
Controller
Configuration version
HDDs random
8 kB blocks
67% read
[IO/s]
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
2
1
1153
971
65174
9478
8
8
8
10
0
5
4294
4784
2435
2229
2531
1382
117403
164298
28732
26336
38806
17952
2
8
1
10
1590
4623
888
3265
62721
183026
9386
28011
8
8
0
5
5291
3008
3784
2097
237818
132953
45574
16056
2
8
8
8
1
10
0
5
1544
4616
5230
2970
994
3213
3729
2039
63189
194669
248073
133538
9993
25960
44424
16243
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
2.5" - Sequential accesses (maximum performance values in MB/s):
PRAID CP400i
PX02SMF040 SAS SSD
PRAID EP400i
PX02SMF040 SAS SSD
PRAID EP420i
PX02SMF040 SAS SSD
SSDs sequential
64 kB blocks
100% write
[MB/s]
SSDs sequential
64 kB blocks
100% read
[MB/s]
HDDs sequential
64 kB blocks
100% write
[MB/s]
RAID level
#Disks
Hard disk
type
RAID
Controller
Configuration version
HDDs sequential
64 kB blocks
100% read
[MB/s]
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
2
1
327
230
1910
422
8
8
8
10
0
5
1051
1795
1579
892
1779
1558
5873
5851
5840
1640
3297
1760
2
8
1
10
350
1148
232
945
1877
5825
406
1486
8
8
0
5
1874
1648
1892
1658
5817
5871
3081
2661
2
8
8
8
1
10
0
5
375
1174
1871
1648
232
942
1892
1650
1887
5795
5819
5869
400
1665
3077
2569
Conclusion
At full configuration with powerful hard disks the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 achieves a throughput of up to
5873 MB/s for sequential load profiles and a transaction rate of up to 248073 IO/s for typical, random
application scenarios.
To operate SSDs within the maximum performance range the PRAID CP400i is already suited for the simpler
RAID levels 0, 1 and 10, and a PRAID controller with cache is to be preferred for RAID 5.
In the event of HDDs the controller cache for random load profiles with a significant write share has
performance advantages for all RAID levels.
Page 15 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
SAP SD
The SAP application software consists of modules used to manage all standard business processes. These
include modules for ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), such as Assemble-to-Order (ATO), Financial
Accounting (FI), Human Resources (HR), Materials Management (MM), Production Planning (PP) plus Sales
and Distribution (SD), as well as modules for SCM (Supply Chain Management), Retail, Banking, Utilities, BI
(Business Intelligence), CRM (Customer Relation Management) or PLM (Product Lifecycle Management).
The application software is always based on a database so that a SAP configuration consists of the
hardware, the software components operating system, zhe database and the SAP software itself.
SAP AG has developed SAP Standard Application Benchmarks in order to verify the performance, stability
and scaling of a SAP application system. The benchmarks, of which SD Benchmark is the most commonly
used and most important, analyze the performance of the entire system and thus measure the quality of the
integrated individual components.
The benchmark differentiates between a 2-tier and a 3-tier configuration. The 2-tier configuration has the
SAP application and database installed on one server. With a 3-tier configuration the individual components
of the SAP application can be distributed via several servers and an additional server handles the database.
The entire specification of the benchmark developed by SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany can be found at:
http://www.sap.com/benchmark.
The measurement set-up is symbolically illustrated below:
2-tier environment
Server
Disk subsystem
Network
Benchmark
driver
Page 16 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
4 × Xeon E7-8890 v4
Memory
32 × 32GB (2x16GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
Network interface
1Gbit/s LAN
Disk subsystem
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3:
4 × HD SAS 12G 300GB 15K HOT PL 2.5'' EP
1 × PRAID EP420i
1 × PRAID CP400e FH
2 × Eternus JX40
Software
BIOS settings
COD Enable = Enabled
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard Edition
Database
Microsoft SQL Server 2012 (64-bit)
SAP Business Suite
Software
SAP enhancement package 5 for SAP ERP 6.0
Benchmark driver
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX300 S4
Processor
2 × Xeon X5460
Memory
32 GB
Network interface
1Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 SP1
Benchmark results
Certification number 2016036
Number of SAP SD benchmark users
39,500
Average dialog response time
0.98 seconds
Throughput
Fully processed order line items/hour
Dialog steps/hour
SAPS
4,315,330
12,946,000
215,770
Average database request time (dialog/update)
0.010 sec / 0.030 sec
CPU utilization of central server
98%
Operating system, central server
Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard Edition
RDBMS
SQL Server 2012
SAP Business Suite software
Configuration
Central Server
Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
4 processors / 96 cores / 192 threads
Intel Xeon Processor E7-8890 v4, 2.20 GHz, 64 KB L1 cache
and 256 KB L2 cache per core, 60 MB L3 cache per processor
1024 GB main memory
Page 17 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
The following chart shows a comparison of two-tier SAP SD Standard Application Benchmark results for
4-way Xeon E7 v4 based servers with Windows OS and SQL Server database (as of July 19, 2016). The
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 outperforms the comparably configured servers from HP. The latest SAP SD 2-tier
results can be found at http://www.sap.com/solutions/benchmark/sd2tier.epx.
4-way Xeon E7 v4 based Two-Tier SAP SD results with Windows OS and SQL Server RDBMS
4 x Xeon E7-8890 v4
4 processors/96 cores/192 threads
Windows Server 2012 R2/ SQL Server 2012
Certification number: 2016036
39500
HPE ProLiant DL580 Gen9
4 x Xeon E7-8890 v4
38800
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Number of Benchmark Users
The following diagram illustrates the throughput of the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 in comparison to its
predecessor, the PRIMERGY RX4770 M2, in the respective most performant configuration.
Two-Tier SAP SD results: PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 vs. predecessor
4 x Xeon E7-8890 v4
39500
4 x Xeon E7-8890 v3
29750
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Number of Benchmark Users
Page 18 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
OLTP-2
OLTP stands for Online Transaction Processing. The OLTP-2 benchmark is based on the typical application
scenario of a database solution. In OLTP-2 database access is simulated and the number of transactions
achieved per second (tps) determined as the unit of measurement for the system.
In contrast to benchmarks such as SPECint and TPC-E, which were standardized by independent bodies
and for which adherence to the respective rules and regulations are monitored, OLTP-2 is an internal
benchmark of Fujitsu. OLTP-2 is based on the well-known database benchmark TPC-E. OLTP-2 was
designed in such a way that a wide range of configurations can be measured to present the scaling of a
system with regard to the CPU and memory configuration.
Even if the two benchmarks OLTP-2 and TPC-E simulate similar application scenarios using the same load
profiles, the results cannot be compared or even treated as equal, as the two benchmarks use different
methods to simulate user load. OLTP-2 values are typically similar to TPC-E values. A direct comparison, or
even referring to the OLTP-2 result as TPC-E, is not permitted, especially because there is no priceperformance calculation.
Further information can be found in the document Benchmark Overview OLTP-2.
Tier A
Driver
Network
Tier B
Network
Application Server
Database Server
Disk
subsystem
Clients
Database Server (Tier B)
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
Memory
2048 GB: 32 × 64GB (2x32GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
1024 GB: 16 × 64GB (2x32GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
Network interface
2 × onboard LAN 10 Gb/s
Disk subsystem
RX4770 M3:
®
®
7 × JX40 S2:
PRAID EP400i
2 × 300 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives, RAID1 (OS),
6 × 600 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives, RAID10 (LOG)
7 × PRAID EP420e
Je 24 × 400 GB SSD Drive, RAID5 (data)
Page 19 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Software
BIOS
Version R1.0.0
Operating system
Database
Microsoft SQL Server 2016 Enterprise
Application Server (Tier A)
Hardware
Model
1 × PRIMERGY RX2530 M1
Processor
2 × Xeon E5-2697 v3
Memory
64 GB, 2133 MHz registered ECC DDR4
Network interface
1 × Dual Port LAN 1Gb/s
Disk subsystem
2 × 300 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive
Software
Operating system
Client
Hardware
Model
1 × PRIMERGY RX300 S7
Processor
2 × Xeon E5-2667 v2
Memory
64 GB, 1600 MHz registered ECC DDR3
Network interface
1 × Dual Port LAN 1Gb/s
Disk subsystem
1 × 300 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive
Software
Operating system
Benchmark
OLTP-2 Software EGen version 1.14.0
Page 20 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Benchmark results
Database performance greatly depends on the configuration options with CPU, memory and on the
connectivity of an adequate disk subsystem for the database. In the following scaling considerations for the
processors we assume that both the memory and the disk subsystem has been adequately chosen and is
not a bottleneck.
A guideline in the database environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more
important than the speed of the memory accesses. This why a configuration with a total memory of 2048 GB
was considered for the measurements with four processors and a configuration with a total memory of
1024 GB for the measurements with two processors. The OLTP-2 scaling measurements presented here
were all performed with a memory access speed – depending on the processor type – of at most 1600 MHz.
Further information about memory performance can be found in the White Paper Memory performance of
Xeon E7 v4 (Broadwell-EX)-based systems.
The following diagram shows the OLTP-2 transaction rates that can be achieved with two and four
®
®
processors of the Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Product Family.
OLTP-2 tps
8761.05
Xeon E7-8890 v4
24 Core, HT
4867.25
8095.29
Xeon E7-8880 v4
22 Core, HT
4497.38
7396.84
Xeon E7-8870 v4
20 Core, HT
4109.36
7172.49
Xeon E7-8867 v4
18 Core, HT
3984.72
6977.98
Xeon E7-8860 v4
18 Core, HT
3876.66
5724.39
Xeon E7-4850 v4
16 Core, HT
3180.22
4965.52
Xeon E7-4830 v4
14 Core, HT
2758.62
4989.37
Xeon E7-8891 v4
10 Core, HT
2771.87
3447.78
Xeon E7-4820 v4
10 Core, HT
1915.43
2864.43
Xeon E7-4809 v4
8 Core, HT
1591.35
4CPUs 2048GB
2223.35
Xeon E7-8893 v4
4 Core, HT
2CPUs 1024GB
1235.19
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
tps
HT:
Hyper-Threading
bold:
measured
cursive: calculated
Page 21 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
It is evident that a wide performance range is covered by the variety of released processors. If you compare
the OLTP-2 value of the processor with the lowest performance (Xeon E7-8893 v4) with the value of the
processor with the highest performance (Xeon E7-8890 v4), the result is a 3.9-fold increase in performance.
Based on the results achieved the processors can be divided into different performance groups:
The start is made with Xeon E7-8893 v4 and E7-4809 v4 as processors with four or eight cores. The Xeon
E7-4820 v4 processor with its ten cores has the next best performance to offer. Due to its high clock
frequency and the high QPI speed of 9.60 GT/s a higher throughput rate is achieved with the performanceoptimized 10-core processor Xeon E7-8891 v4.
The groups of 14-, 16-, 18 and 20-core processors offer in this processor series a medium-range OLTP-2
performance. Due to the various technical features of the processors in these groups (see “Technical data”)
it is possible to choose the right CPU depending on the usage scenario.
The processors with 22 or 24 cores are to be found at the upper end of the performance scale. An OLTP
performance of between 8170.13 tps (4 × Xeon E7-8880 v4) and 8761.05 tps (4 × Xeon E7-8890 v4) is
achieved.
If you compare the maximum achievable OLTP-2 values of the current system generation with the values
that were achieved on the predecessor systems, the result is an increase of about 27%.
tps
Maximum OLTP-2 tps
Comparison of system generations
10000
9000
+ ~27%
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
4 × E7-8890 v3
2048 GB
4 × E7-8890 v4
2048 GB
2000
SQL 2014
SQL 2016
1000
0
PRIMERGY RX4770 M2
Page 22 (44)
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
TPC-E
The TPC-E benchmark measures the performance of online transaction processing systems (OLTP) and is
based on a complex database and a number of different transaction types that are carried out on it. TPC-E is
not only a hardware-independent but also a software-independent benchmark and can thus be run on every
test platform, i.e. proprietary or open. In addition to the results of the measurement, all the details of the
systems measured and the measuring method must also be explained in a measurement report (Full
Disclosure Report or FDR). Consequently, this ensures that the measurement meets all benchmark
requirements and is reproducible. TPC-E does not just measure an individual server, but a rather extensive
system configuration. Keys to performance in this respect are the database server, disk I/O and network
communication.
The performance metric is tpsE, where tps means transactions per second. tpsE is the average number of
Trade-Result-Transactions that are performed within a second. The TPC-E standard defines a result as the
tpsE rate, the price per performance value (e.g. $/tpsE) and the availability date of the measured
configuration.
Further information about TPC-E can be found in the overview document Benchmark Overview TPC-E.
Benchmark results
In July 2016 Fujitsu submitted a TPC-E benchmark result for the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 with the 24-core
processor Intel Xeon E7-8890 v4 and 2048 GB memory.
The results show an enormous increase in performance compared with the PRIMERGY RX4770 M2 with a
simultaneous reduction in costs.
Page 23 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
FUJITSU Server
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
TPC-E Throughput
8,796.47 tpsE
Price/Performance
$ 116.62 USD per tpsE
Availability Date
July 31, 2016
TPC-E 1.14.0
TPC Pricing 1.7.0
Report Date
July 12, 2016
Total System Cost
$ 1,025,815 USD
Database Server Configuration
Operating System
Microsoft Windows Server
2012 R2 Standard Edition
Database Manager
Microsoft SQL Server
2016 Enterprise Edition
SUT
Processors/Cores/Threads
4/96/192
Memory
2048 GB
Tier A
PRIMERGY RX2530 M1
2x Intel Xeon E5-2697 v3 2.60 GHz
64 GB Memory
2x 300 GB 15k rpm SAS Drive
2x onboard LAN 10 Gb/s
1x Dual Port LAN 1 Gb/s
1x SAS RAID controller
Tier B
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
4x Intel Xeon E7-8890 v4 2.20 GHz
2048 GB Memory
2x 300 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives
6x 600 GB 15k rpm SAS Drives
2x onboard LAN 10 Gb/s
8x SAS RAID Controller
Storage
1x PRIMECENTER Rack
7x ETERNUS JX40
168x 400 GB SSD Drives
Initial Database Size
36,951 GB
Redundancy Level 1
RAID-5 data and RAID-10 log
Storage
168 x 400 GB SSD
6 x 600 GB 15k rpm HDD
More details about this TPC-E result, in particular the Full Disclosure Report, can be found via the TPC web
page http://www.tpc.org/tpce/results/tpce_result_detail.asp?id=116071201.
Page 24 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
In July 2016, Fujitsu is represented with seven results in the TPC-E list (without historical results).
System and Processors
Price /
Performance
Throughput
Availability Date
PRIMERGY RX300 S8 with 2 × Xeon E5-2697 v2
2472.58 tpsE
$135.14 per tpsE September 10, 2013
PRIMEQUEST 2800E with 2 × Xeon E7-8890 v2
8582.52 tpsE
$205.43 per tpsE
Mai 1, 2014
PRIMERGY RX2540 M1 with 2 × Xeon E5-2699 v3
3772.08 tpsE
$130.44 per tpsE
December 1, 2014
6904.53 tpsE
$126.49 per tpsE
June 1, 2015
PRIMEQUEST 2800E2 with 8 × Xeon E7-8890 v3
10058.28 tpsE
4734.87 tpsE
$111.65 per tpsE
July 31, 2016
8796.47 tpsE
$116.62 per tpsE
July 31, 2016
$187.53 per tpsE November 11, 2015
See the TPC web site for more information and all the TPC-E results (including historical results)
(http://www.tpc.org/tpce).
The following overview, sorted according to price/performance, shows the best TPC-E price per
th
performance ratios (as of July 12 , 2016, without historical results) and the corresponding TPCE throughputs. PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 with a price per performance ratio of $116.62/tpsE has
the best price/performance value of all 4-socket systems.
System
Fujitsu
PRIMERGY RX2540 M2
Lenovo System x3650 M5
Fujitsu
PRIMERGY RX4770 M2
Fujitsu
PRIMERGY RX2540 M1
Fujitsu
PRIMERGY RX300 S8
Lenovo System x3850 X6
Lenovo System x3950 X6
IBM
System x3650 M4
Fujitsu
PRIMEQUEST 2800E2
Processor type
processors/
cores/threads
2 × Intel Xeon
E5-2699 v4
4 × Intel Xeon
E7-8890 v4
2 × Intel Xeon
E5-2699 v4
4 × Intel Xeon
E7-8890 v3
2 × Intel Xeon
E5-2699 v3
2 × Intel Xeon
E5-2697 v2
4 × Intel Xeon
E7-8890 v4
8 × Intel Xeon
E7-8890 v3
2 × Intel Xeon
E5-2697 v2
8 × Intel Xeon
E7-8890 v3
tpsE
(higher is
better)
$/tpsE
(low er is better)
availability
date
4,734.87
111.65
2016-07-31
8,796.47
116.62
2016-07-31
4,938.14
117.91
2016-07-31
6,904.53
126.94
2015-01-06
3,772.08
130.44
2014-12-01
2,472.58
135.14
2013-09-10
9,068.00
139.85
2016-07-31
11,058.99
143.91
2015-12-17
2,591.00
150.00
2013-09-10
10,058.28
187.53
2015-11-11
See the TPC web site for more information and all the TPC-E results (including historical results)
(http://www.tpc.org/tpce).
Page 25 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
vServCon
vServCon is a benchmark used by Fujitsu to compare server configurations with hypervisor with regard to
their suitability for server consolidation. This allows both the comparison of systems, processors and I/O
technologies as well as the comparison of hypervisors, virtualization forms and additional drivers for virtual
machines.
vServCon is not a new benchmark in the true sense of the word. It is more a framework that combines
already established benchmarks (or in modified form) as workloads in order to reproduce the load of a
consolidated and virtualized server environment. Three proven benchmarks are used which cover the
application scenarios database, application server and web server.
Application scenario
Benchmark
No. of logical CPU cores
Memory
Database
Sysbench (adapted)
2
1.5 GB
Java application server
SPECjbb (adapted, with 50% - 60% load)
2
2 GB
Web server
WebBench
1
1.5 GB
Each of the three application scenarios is allocated to a dedicated virtual machine (VM). Add to these a
fourth machine, the so-called idle VM. These four VMs make up a “tile”. Depending on the performance
capability of the underlying server hardware, you may as part of a measurement also have to start several
identical tiles in parallel in order to achieve a maximum performance score.
System Under Test
Database
VM
Java
VM
Web
VM
…
Database
Java
VM
VM
Database
Java
VM
VM
Database
Java
VM
VM
Web
VM
Web
VM
Web
VM
Idle
VM
Tile n
…
Idle
VM
Idle
VM
Idle
VM
Tile 3
Tile 2
Tile 1
Each of the three vServCon application scenarios provides a specific benchmark result in the form of
application-specific transaction rates for the respective VM. In order to derive a normalized score, the
individual benchmark results for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system.
The resulting relative performance values are then suitably weighted and finally added up for all VMs and
tiles. The outcome is a score for this tile number.
Starting as a rule with one tile, this procedure is performed for an increasing number of tiles until no further
significant increase in this vServCon score occurs. The final vServCon score is then the maximum of the
vServCon scores for all tile numbers. This score thus reflects the maximum total throughput that can be
achieved by running the mix defined in vServCon that consists of numerous VMs up to the possible full
utilization of CPU resources. This is why the measurement environment for vServCon measurements is
designed in such a way that only the CPU is the limiting factor and that no limitations occur as a result of
other resources.
The progression of the vServCon scores for the tile numbers provides useful information about the scaling
behavior of the “System under Test”.
Moreover, vServCon also documents the total CPU load of the host (VMs and all other CPU activities) and, if
possible, electrical power consumption.
A detailed description of vServCon is in the document: Benchmark Overview vServCon.
Page 26 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Framework
controller
Server
Disk subsystem
Multiple
1Gb or 10Gb
networks
Load generators
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
Memory
1 TB: 32 × 32GB (2x16GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
Network interface
1 × dual port 1GbE adapter
1 × dual port 10GbE server adapter
Disk subsystem
1 × dual-channel FC-Controller Emulex LPe16002
LINUX/LIO based flash storage system
®
®
Software
Operating system
VMware ESXi 6.0.0 U2 Build 3620759
Load generator (incl. Framework controller)
Hardware (Shared)
Enclosure
PRIMERGY BX900
Hardware
Model
18 × PRIMERGY BX920 S1 server blades
Processor
2 × Xeon X5570
Memory
12 GB
Network interface
3 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise with Hyper-V
Page 27 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Load generator VM (per tile 3 load generator VMs on various server blades)
Hardware
Processor
1 × logical CPU
Memory
512 MB
Network interface
2 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition
Benchmark results
®
The quad-socket system PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 dealt with here are based on processors of the Intel
®
Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family. The features of the processors are summarized in the section “Technical
data”.
The available processors of these systems with their results can be seen in the following table.
Score
#Tiles
4 Cores
Hyper-Threading, Turbo-Mode
E7-8893 v4
17.3
9
8 Cores
Hyper-Threading
E7-4809 v4
21.5
15
10 Cores
Hyper-Threading
E7-4820 v4
26.1
19
10 Cores
E7-8891 v4
40.9
22
14 Cores
E7-4830 v4
39.3
26
16 Cores
E7-4850 v4
47.4
30
E7-8860 v4
58.5
35
E7-8867 v4
59.9
35
20 Cores
E7-8870 v4
63.5
39
22 Cores
E7-8880 v4
69.5
42
24 Cores
E7-8890 v4
75.6
44
®
®
Intel Xeon Processor
E7 v4 Family
Processor
18 Cores
These PRIMERGY quad-socket systems are very suitable for application virtualization thanks to the progress
made in processor technology. Compared with a system based on the previous processor generation an
approximate 30% higher virtualization performance can be achieved (measured in vServCon score in their
maximum configuration).
The relatively large performance differences between the processors can be explained by their features. The
values scale on the basis of the number of cores, the size of the L3 cache and the CPU clock frequency and
as a result of the features of Hyper-Threading and turbo mode, which are available in most processor types.
Furthermore, the data transfer rate between processors (“QPI Speed”) also determines performance. As a
matter of principle, the memory access speed also influences performance. A guideline in the virtualization
environment for selecting main memory is that sufficient quantity is more important than the speed of the
memory accesses.
More information about the topic "Memory Performance" can be found in the White Paper Memory
performance of Xeon E7 v4 (Broadwell-EX)-based systems.
Page 28 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
The first diagram compares the virtualization performance values that can be achieved with the processors
reviewed here.
®
®
E7-4809 v4
E7-4820 v4
E7-8891 v4
E7-4830 v4
30
35
35
39
42
E7-8880 v4
26
E7-8870 v4
22
E7-8867 v4
19
E7-8860 v4
15
E7-4850 v4
9
E7-8893 v4
#Tiles
44
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
E7-8890 v4
Final vServCon Score
70
0
70
×2
60
50
30
20
10
75.6@44 tiles
40
37.9@22 tiles
Final vServCon Score
80
2 × E7-8890 v4
4 × E7-8890 v4
Until now we have looked at the virtualization
performance of a fully configured system. However, with
a server with four sockets the question also arises as to
how good performance scaling is from two to four
processors. The better the scaling, the lower the
overhead usually caused by the shared use of resources
within a server. The scaling factor also depends on the
application. If the server is used as a virtualization
platform for server consolidation, the system scales with
a factor of 2. When operated with four processors, the
system thus achieves twice the performance as with two
processors, as is illustrated in the diagram opposite using
the processor version Xeon E7-8890 v4 as an example.
0
Page 29 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
The next diagram illustrates the virtualization performance for increasing numbers of VMs based on the
Xeon E7-4830 v3 (14-Core) processor.
E7-4830 v4
40
vServCon Score
30
20
2.41
5.00
7.33
9.92
12.3
14.6
17.0
19.0
21.5
23.7
25.4
27.5
29.0
30.5
31.1
32.3
33.2
34.2
35.0
36.2
37.2
37.3
38.3
38.5
39.2
39.3
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
#Tiles
In addition to the increased number of physical cores, Hyper-Threading, which is supported by all Xeon E7
processors, is an additional reason for the high number of VMs that can be operated. As is known, a physical
processor core is consequently divided into two logical cores so that the number of cores available for the
hypervisor is doubled. This standard feature thus generally increases the virtualization performance of a
system.
The scaling curves for the number of tiles as seen in the previous diagram are specifically for systems with
Hyper-Threading. 56 physical and thus 112 logical cores are available with the Xeon E7-4830 v4 processors;
approximately four of them are used per tile (see Benchmark description). This means that a parallel use of
the same physical cores by several VMs is avoided up to a maximum of about fourteen tiles. That is why the
performance curve in this range scales almost ideal. For the quantities above the growth is flatter up to CPU
full utilization.
The previous diagram examined the total performance of all application VMs of a host. However, studying
the performance from an individual application VM viewpoint is also interesting. This information is in the
previous diagram. For example, the total optimum is reached in the above Xeon E7-4830 v4 situation with 78
application VMs (26 tiles, not including the idle VMs); the low load case is represented by three application
VMs (one tile, not including the idle VM). Remember: the vServCon score for one tile is an average value
across the three application scenarios in vServCon. This average performance of one tile drops when
changing from the low load case to the total optimum of the vServCon score – from 2.41 to 39.3/26=1.50, i.e.
to 59%. The individual types of application VMs can react very differently in the high load situation. It is thus
clear that in a specific situation the performance requirements of an individual application must be balanced
against the overall requirements regarding the numbers of VMs on a virtualization host.
Page 30 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
The virtualization-relevant progress in processor technology since 2009 has an effect on the one hand on an
individual VM and, on the other hand, on the possible maximum number of VMs up to CPU full utilization.
The following comparison shows the proportions for both types of improvements. Five systems are
compared: a system from 2009, a
System
Best
vServCon
Best
vServCon
system from 2010, a system from
Performance Score
Maximum
Score
2011, a system from 2014, a
Few VMs
1 Tile
Performance
max.
system from 2015 and a current 2009 RX600 S4
X7460
1.69
X7460
6.66@ 6 tiles
system with the best processors 2010 RX600 S5
X7542
2.07
X7560
17.8@18 tiles
each (see table opposite) for few 2011 RX600 S6
E7-8837
2.24
E7-4870
23.9@24 tiles
VMs and for highest maximum
2014 RX4770 M1 E7-4890 v2
2.76
E7-4890 v2
44.9@28 tiles
performance.
2015
2016
RX4770 M2
RX4770 M3
E7-8893 v3
E7-8893 v4
3.04
3.18
E7-8890 v3
E7-8890 v4
58.2@34 tiles
75.6@44 tiles
Virtualization relevant improvements
10
Few VMs (1 Tile)
9
8
vServCon Score
7
6
5
3
× 1.05
× 1.10
4
× 1.22
× 1.23
× 1.08
2
1
1.69
2.07
2.24
2008
X7460
2667 MHz
6C
2010
X7542
2667 MHz
6C
2011
E7-8837
2667 MHz
8C
2.76
3.04
3.18
2014
E7-4890 v2
2800 MHz
15C
2015
E7-8893 v3
3200 MHz
4C
2016
E7-8893 v4
3200 MHz
4C
0
Year
Y CPU
Freq.
#Cores
The performance for an individual VM in low-load situations has only slightly increased for the processors
compared here with the highest clock frequency per core. We must explicitly point out that the increased
virtualization performance as seen in the score cannot be completely deemed as an improvement for one
individual VM.
Page 31 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Performance increases in the virtualization environment since 2010 are mainly achieved by increases in the
maximum number of VMs that can be operated.
Virtualization relevant improvements
80
× 1.30
Score at optimum Tile count
70
× 1.30
vServCon Score
60
× 1.88
50
40
75.60
× 1.34
30
58.20
× 2.67
44.9
20
10
17.80
23.9
6.66
0
2008
X7460
2667 MHz
6C
Page 32 (44)
2010
X7560
2267 MHz
8C
2011
E7-4870
2400 MHz
10C
2014
E7-4890 v2
2800 MHz
15C
2015
E7-8890 v3
2500 MHz
18C
2016
E7-8890 v4
2200 MHz
24C
Year
Y CPU
Freq.
#Cores
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
VMmark V2
VMmark V2 is a benchmark developed by VMware to compare server configurations with hypervisor
solutions from VMware regarding their suitability for server consolidation. In addition to the software for load
generation, the benchmark consists of a defined load profile and binding regulations. The benchmark results
can be submitted to VMware and are published on their Internet site after a successful review process. After
the discontinuation of the proven benchmark “VMmark V1” in October 2010, it has been succeeded by
“VMmark V2”, which requires a cluster of at least two servers and covers data center functions, like Cloning
and Deployment of virtual machines (VMs), Load Balancing, as well as the moving of VMs with vMotion and
also Storage vMotion.
In addition to the “Performance Only” result, it is also possible from version 2.5 of VMmark to alternatively
measure the electrical power consumption and publish it as a “Performance with Server Power” result (power
consumption of server systems only) and/or “Performance with Server and Storage Power” result (power
consumption of server systems and all storage components).
VMmark V2 is not a new benchmark in the actual sense. Application scenario Load tool
# VMs
It is in fact a framework that consolidates already
LoadGen
1
established benchmarks, as workloads in order to Mail server
Web
2.0
Olio
client
2
simulate the load of a virtualized consolidated server
environment. Three proven benchmarks, which cover E-commerce
DVD Store 2 client
4
the application scenarios mail server, Web 2.0, and
Standby server
(IdleVMTest)
1
e-commerce were integrated in VMmark V2.
Each of the three application scenarios is assigned to a total of seven dedicated virtual machines. Then add
to these an eighth VM called the “standby server”. These eight VMs form a “tile”. Because of the
performance capability of the underlying server hardware, it is usually necessary to have started several
identical tiles in parallel as part of a measurement in order to achieve a maximum overall performance.
A new feature of VMmark V2 is an infrastructure component, which is present once for every two hosts. It
measures the efficiency levels of data center consolidation through VM Cloning and Deployment, vMotion
and Storage vMotion. The Load Balancing capacity of the data center is also used (DRS, Distributed
Resource Scheduler).
The result of VMmark V2 for test type „Performance Only“ is a number, known as a “score”, which provides
information about the performance of the measured virtualization solution. The score reflects the maximum
total consolidation benefit of all VMs for a server configuration with hypervisor and is used as a comparison
criterion of various hardware platforms.
This score is determined from the individual results of the VMs and an infrastructure result. Each of the five
VMmark V2 application or front-end VMs provides a specific benchmark result in the form of applicationspecific transaction rates for each VM. In order to derive a normalized score the individual benchmark results
for one tile are put in relation to the respective results of a reference system. The resulting dimensionless
performance values are then averaged geometrically and finally added up for all VMs. This value is included
in the overall score with a weighting of 80%. The infrastructure workload is only present in the benchmark
once for every two hosts; it determines 20% of the result. The number of transactions per hour and the
average duration in seconds respectively are determined for the score of the infrastructure workload
components.
In addition to the actual score, the number of VMmark V2 tiles is always specified with each VMmark V2
score. The result is thus as follows: “Score@Number of Tiles”, for example “4.20@5 tiles”.
In the case of the two test types “Performance with Server Power” and “Performance with Server and
Storage Power” a so-called “Server PPKW Score” and “Server and Storage PPKW Score” is determined,
which is the performance score divided by the average power consumption in kilowatts (PPKW =
performance per kilowatt (KW)).
The results of the three test types should not be compared with each other.
A detailed description of VMmark V2 is available in the document Benchmark Overview VMmark V2.
Page 33 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Clients & Management
Server(s)
Storage System
Multiple
1Gb or 10Gb
networks
vMotion
network
Load Generators
incl. Prime Client and
Datacenter Management
Server
System under Test (SUT)
Hardware
Number of servers
2
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
4 × Xeon E7-8890 v4
Memory
1024 GB:
Network interface
Intel X540-AT2 Dual Port 10GbE Onboard Adapter
1 × Emulex OneConnect OCe14000 Dual 10GbE Port Adapter
Disk subsystem
Dual port PFC EP LPe16002
3 × PRIMERGY RX300 S8 configured as Fibre Channel target
Details see disclosures
16 × 64GB (2x32GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
Software
BIOS
Version V5.0.0.11 R1.0.0
BIOS settings
See details
Operating system
VMware ESXi 6.0.0 U2 Build 3620759
Operating system
settings
ESXi settings: see details
Datacenter Management Server (DMS)
Hardware (Shared)
Enclosure
PRIMERGY BX600
Network Switch
1 × PRIMERGY BX600 GbE Switch Blade 30/12
Hardware
Model
1 × server blade PRIMERGY BX620 S5
Processor
2 × Xeon X5570
Memory
24 GB
Network interface
6 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
Page 34 (44)
VMware ESXi 5.1.0 Build 799733
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Datacenter Management Server (DMS)VM
Hardware
Processor
4 × logical CPU
Memory
10 GB
Network interface
2 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise x64 Edition
Prime Client
Hardware (Shared)
Enclosure
PRIMERGY BX600
Network Switch
1 × PRIMERGY BX600 GbE Switch Blade 30/12
Hardware
Model
1 × server blade PRIMERGY BX620 S5
Processor
2 × Xeon X5570
Memory
12 GB
Network interface
6 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2
Load generator
Hardware
Model
3 × PRIMERGY RX600 S6
Processor
4 × Xeon E7-4870
Memory
512 GB
Network interface
6 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
VMware ESX 4.1.0 U2 Build 502767
Load generator VM (per tile 1 load generator VM)
Hardware
Processor
4 × logical CPU
Memory
4 GB
Network interface
1 × 1 Gbit/s LAN
Software
Operating system
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Enterprise x64 Edition SP2
Details
See disclosure
http://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/vmmark/2016-06-21Fujitsu-RX4770M3.pdf
http://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/vmmark/2016-06-21Fujitsu-RX4770M3-serverPPKW.pdf
Page 35 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Benchmark results
“Performance Only” measurement result
On June 21, 2016 Fujitsu achieved with two PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 systems with Xeon
E7-8890 v4 processors and VMware ESXi 6.0.0 U2 a VMmark V2 score of “61.32@52 tiles” in a
system configuration with a total of 2 × 96 processor cores and when using two identical
servers/partitions in the “System under Test” (SUT). With this result the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
is in the official VMmark V2 “Performance Only” ranking the most powerful 4-socket server in a “matched
pair” configuration consisting of two identical hosts (valid as of benchmark results publication date).
st
All comparisons for the competitor products reflect the status of 21 June 2016. The current VMmark V2
results
as
well
as
the
detailed
results
and
configuration
data
are
available
at
http://www.vmware.com/products/vmmark/results.html.
The diagram shows the result of the PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 in comparison with the best 4-socket systems
in a “matched pair” configuration.
4-socket systems, “matched pair”
70
50
46.62@40 tiles
46.64@40 tiles
47.16@40 tiles
47.46@40 tiles
10
47.66@40 tiles
20
57.87@50 tiles
30
60.63@50 tiles
40
61.32@52 tiles
VMmark V2 Score
60
0
2 × Fujitsu
2 × Huawei
2 × HPE
2 × Huawei
2 × Fujitsu
2 × Huawei
2 × HP
2 × Fujitsu
PRIMERGY FusionServer
ProLiant
FusionServer PRIMERGY FusionServer
ProLiant PRIMEQUEST
RX4770 M3 RH5885H V3 DL580 Gen9 CH242 V3
RX4770 M2 RH5885H V3 DL580 Gen9
2800E2
2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 4 × Xeon
DDR4
2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 4 × Xeon
E7-8890 v4
E7-8890 v4
E7-8890 v4 2 × 4 × Xeon E7-8890 v3
E7-8890 v3
E7-8890 v3
E7-8890 v3
E7-8890 v3
The table opposite shows the difference 4-socket systems, “matched pair”
VMmark V2 score Difference
in the score (in %) between the Fujitsu
61.32@52 tiles
system and the other 4-socket systems
Huawei FusionServer RH5885H V3
60.63@50 tiles
1.14%
(“matched pair”).
57.87@50 tiles
5.96%
The processors used, which with a good HPE ProLiant DL580 Gen9
hypervisor setting could make optimal Huawei FusionServer CH242 V3 DDR4 47.66@40 tiles
28.66%
use of their processor features, were the Fujitsu PRIMERGY RX4770 M2
47.46@40 tiles
29.20%
essential prerequisites for achieving all
47.16@40 tiles
30.03%
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 result. These Huawei FusionServer RH5885H V3
46.64@40 tiles
31.48%
features include Hyper-Threading. All this HP ProLiant DL580 Gen9
has a particularly positive effect during Fujitsu PRIMEQUEST 2800E2
46.62@40 tiles
31.53%
virtualization.
All VMs, their application data, the host operating system as well as additionally required data were on a
powerful Fibre Channel disk subsystem. As far as possible, the configuration of the disk subsystem takes the
specific requirements of the benchmark into account. The use of flash technology in the form of SAS SSDs
and PCIe-SSDs in the powerful Fibre Channel disk subsystem resulted in further advantages in response
times of the storage medium used.
The network connection to the load generators was implemented via 10Gb LAN ports. The infrastructureworkload connection between the hosts was by means of 1Gb LAN ports.
All the components used were optimally attuned to each other.
Page 36 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
„Performance with Server Power“ measurement result
On June 21, 2016 Fujitsu achieved with two PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 systems with Xeon
E7-8890 v4 processors and VMware ESXi 6.0.0 U2 a VMmark V2 “Server PPKW Score” of
“30.4559@52 tiles” in a system configuration with a total of 2 × 96 processor cores and when
using two identical servers/partitions in the “System under Test” (SUT). With this result the
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3 is in the official VMmark V2 “Performance with Server Power” ranking the most
energy-efficient 4-socket server worldwide (valid as of benchmark results publication date).
st
All comparisons for the competitor products reflect the status of 21 June 2016. The current VMmark V2
“Performance with Server Power” results as well as the detailed results and configuration data are available
at http://www.vmware.com/products/vmmark/results.1.html.
The diagram shows all VMmark V2 “Performance with Server Power“ results.
Performance with Server Power
40
35
30
2 × Fujitsu
PRIMERGY
RX4770 M3
2 × 4 × Xeon
E7-8890 v4
2 × Fujitsu
PRIMERGY
RX2540 M1
2 × 2 × Xeon
E5-2699 v3
2 × Fujitsu
PRIMERGY
RX2530 M1
2 × 2 × Xeon
E5-2699 v3
17.6899@20 tiles
2 × Fujitsu
PRIMERGY
RX2540 M2
2 × 2 × Xeon
E5-2699 v4
20.0410@40 tiles
5
22.8998@40 tiles
10
23.6493@22 tiles
15
25.2305@22 tiles
20
30.4559@52 tiles
25
38.3065@28 tiles
VMmark V2 Server PPKW Score
45
0
2 × Fujitsu
2 × Fujitsu
2 × HP
PRIMERGY PRIMEQUEST
ProLiant
RX4770 M2
2800E2
DL380 Gen9
2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 4 × Xeon 2 × 2 × Xeon
E7-8890 v3
E7-8890 v3
E5-2699 v3
Page 37 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
STREAM
STREAM is a synthetic benchmark that has been used for many years to determine memory throughput and
which was developed by John McCalpin during his professorship at the University of Delaware. Today
STREAM is supported at the University of Virginia, where the source code can be downloaded in either
Fortran or C. STREAM continues to play an important role in the HPC environment in particular. It is for
example an integral part of the HPC Challenge benchmark suite.
The benchmark is designed in such a way that it can be used both on PCs and on server systems. The unit
of measurement of the benchmark is GB/s, i.e. the number of gigabytes that can be read and written per
second.
STREAM measures the memory throughput for sequential accesses. These can generally be performed
more efficiently than accesses that are randomly distributed on the memory, because the processor caches
are used for sequential access.
Before execution the source code is adapted to the environment to be measured. Therefore, the size of the
data area must be at least 12 times larger than the total of all last-level processor caches so that these have
as little influence as possible on the result. The OpenMP program library is used to enable selected parts of
the program to be executed in parallel during the runtime of the benchmark, consequently achieving optimal
load distribution to the available processor cores.
During implementation the defined data area, consisting of 8-byte elements, is successively copied to four
types, and arithmetic calculations are also performed to some extent.
Type
Execution
Bytes per step
Floating-point calculation per step
COPY
a(i) = b(i)
16
0
SCALE
a(i) = q × b(i)
16
1
SUM
a(i) = b(i) + c(i)
24
1
TRIAD
a(i) = b(i) + q × c(i)
24
2
The throughput is output in GB/s for each type of calculation. The differences between the various values are
usually only minor on modern systems. In general, only the determined TRIAD value is used as a
comparison.
The measured results primarily depend on the clock frequency of the memory modules; the processors
influence the arithmetic calculations.
9
This chapter specifies throughputs on a basis of 10 (1 GB/s = 10 Byte/s).
Page 38 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
Memory
16 × 32GB (2x16GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
®
®
Software
BIOS settings
HyperThreading = Disabled
Operating system
Operating system
settings
Transparent Huge Pages inactivated
Compiler
Intel C++ Composer XE 2016 for Linux
Benchmark
STREAM Version 5.10
Benchmark results
Processor
Memory
Frequency
[MHz]
Max. Memory
Bandwidth
[GB/s]
Cores
Processor
Frequency
[GHz]
Number of
Processors
TRIAD
Xeon E7-8893 v4
1600
102
4
3.20
4
Xeon E7-4809 v4
1600
102
8
2.10
4
175
Xeon E7-4820 v4
1600
102
10
2.00
4
198
Xeon E7-8891 v4
1600
102
10
2.80
4
260
Xeon E7-4830 v4
1600
102
14
2.00
4
234
Xeon E7-4850 v4
1600
102
16
2.10
4
239
Xeon E7-8860 v4
1600
102
18
2.20
4
265
Xeon E7-8867 v4
1600
102
18
2.40
4
265
Xeon E7-8870 v4
1600
102
20
2.10
4
269
Xeon E7-8880 v4
1600
102
22
2.20
4
264
Xeon E7-8890 v4
1600
102
24
2.20
4
266
[GB/s]
Further information about memory performance can be found in the White Paper Memory performance of
Xeon E7 v4 (Broadwell-EX) based systems.
Page 39 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
LINPACK
LINPACK was developed in the 1970s by Jack Dongarra and some other people to show the performance of
supercomputers. The benchmark consists of a collection of library functions for the analysis and solution of
linear system of equations. A description can be found in the document
http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/hplpaper.pdf.
LINPACK can be used to measure the speed of computers when solving a linear equation system. For this
purpose, an n × n matrix is set up and filled with random numbers between -2 and +2. The calculation is then
performed via LU decomposition with partial pivoting.
A memory of 8n² bytes is required for the matrix. In case of an n × n matrix the number of arithmetic
2
3
2
operations required for the solution is /3n + 2n . Thus, the choice of n determines the duration of the
measurement: a doubling of n results in an approximately eight-fold increase in the duration of the
measurement. The size of n also has an influence on the measurement result itself: as n increases, the
measured value asymptotically approaches a limit. The size of the matrix is therefore usually adapted to the
amount of memory available. Furthermore, the memory bandwidth of the system only plays a minor role for
the measurement result, but a role that cannot be fully ignored. The processor performance is the decisive
factor for the measurement result. Since the algorithm used permits parallel processing, in particular the
number of processors used and their processor cores are - in addition to the clock rate - of outstanding
significance.
LINPACK is used to measure how many floating point operations were carried out per second. The result is
referred to as Rmax and specified in GFlops (Giga Floating Point Operations per Second).
An upper limit, referred to as Rpeak, for the speed of a computer can be calculated from the maximum
number of floating point operations that its processor cores could theoretically carry out in one clock cycle:
Rpeak = Maximum number of floating point operations per clock cycle
× Number of processor cores of the computer
× Rated processor frequency[GHz]
LINPACK is classed as one of the leading benchmarks in the field of high performance computing (HPC).
LINPACK is one of the seven benchmarks currently included in the HPC Challenge benchmark suite, which
takes other performance aspects in the HPC environment into account.
Manufacturer-independent publication of LINPACK results is possible at http://www.top500.org/. The use of a
LINPACK version based on HPL is prerequisite for this (see: http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/hpl/).
Intel offers a highly optimized LINPACK version (shared memory version) for individual systems with Intel
processors. Parallel processes communicate here via "shared memory", i.e. jointly used memory. Another
version provided by Intel is based on HPL (High Performance Linpack). Intercommunication of the LINPACK
processes here takes place via OpenMP and MPI (Message Passing Interface). This enables communication
between the parallel processes - also from one computer to another. Both versions can be downloaded from
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-library-linpack-download/.
Manufacturer-specific LINPACK versions also come into play when graphics cards for General Purpose
Computation on Graphics Processing Unit (GPGPU) are used. These are based on HPL and include
extensions which are needed for communication with the graphics cards.
Page 40 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Hardware
Model
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
Processor
Memory
16 × 32GB (2x16GB) 2Rx4 DDR4-2400 R ECC
®
®
Software
BIOS settings
HyperThreading = Disabled
All processors apart from Xeon E7-4809 v4:
Turbo Mode
= Enabled (default)
= Disabled
Operating system
Benchmark
HPL version: Intel Optimized MP LINPACK Benchmark for Clusters 11.3
Page 41 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
95%
1938
108%
1701
95%
1863
104%
4
2150
2027
94%
2225
103%
4
2534
2384
94%
2504
99%
94%
4
819
2.10
4
1075
Xeon E7-4820 v4
10
2.00
4
1280
Xeon E7-8891 v4
10
2.80
4
Xeon E7-4830 v4
14
2.00
4
Xeon E7-4850 v4
16
2.10
Xeon E7-8860 v4
18
2.20
Rpeak
[GFlops]
3.20
8
Processor
4
Xeon E7-4809 v4
Efficiency
1704
1792
Xeon E7-8893 v4
Rmax (with Turbo Mode)
[GFlops]
Efficiency
1792
Number of processors
95%
Rated Frequency [Ghz]
1020
Cores
Rmax (without Turbo Mode)
[GFlops]
Benchmark results
Xeon E7-8867 v4
18
2.40
4
2764
2600
2722
98%
Xeon E7-8870 v4
20
2.10
4
2688
2533
94%
2677
100%
Xeon E7-8880 v4
22
2.20
4
3097
2915
94%
3004
97%
Xeon E7-8890 v4
24
2.20
4
3379
3176
94%
3338
99%
Rmax = Measurement result
Rpeak = Maximum number of floating point operations per clock cycle
× Number of processor cores of the computer
× Rated frequency [GHz]
As explained in the section "Technical Data", Intel does not as a matter of principle guarantee that the
maximum turbo frequency can be reached in the processor models due to manufacturing tolerances. A
further restriction applies for workloads, such as those generated by LINPACK: with intensive use of AVX
instructions and a high number of instructions per clock unit. Here the frequency of a core can also be limited
if the upper limits of the processor for power consumption and temperature are reached before the upper
limit for the current consumption. This can result in the achievement of a lower performance with turbo mode
than without turbo mode. In such cases, you should disable the turbo functionality via BIOS option.
Page 42 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
Literature
PRIMERGY Servers
http://primergy.com/
PRIMERGY RX4770 M3
This White Paper:
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=8b5a6911-0329-477b-a46b-8891da2b627a
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=1370ebd1-e19a-43c7-91e2-a9c142b3b0b7
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=7984ec7d-3891-4a43-8769-71820068ec18
Data sheet
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0769aca2-f7b3-4afe-8ad1-3e6a9a4d0ce6
PRIMERGY Performance
http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/x86-server-benchmarks
Performance of Server Components
http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/products/computing/servers/mission-critical/benchmarks/x86components.html
BIOS optimizations for Xeon E5 v4 & E7 v4 based systems
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=eb90c352-8d98-4f5a-9eed-b5aade5ccae1
Memory performance of Xeon E7 v4 (Broadwell-EX)-based systems
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=7bd26a0c-a46c-4717-be6d-78abebba56b2
RAID Controller Performance
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=9845be50-7d4f-4ef7-ac61-bbde399c1014
Disk I/O: Performance of storage media and RAID controllers
Basics of Disk I/O Performance
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=65781a00-556f-4a98-90a7-7022feacc602
Information about Iometer
http://www.iometer.org
LINPACK
The LINPACK Benchmark: Past, Present, and Future
http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/JackDongarra/PAPERS/hplpaper.pdf
TOP500
http://www.top500.org/
HPL - A Portable Implementation of the High-Performance Linpack Benchmark for DistributedMemory Computers
http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/hpl/
Intel Math Kernel Library – LINPACK Download
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-library-linpack-download/
OLTP-2
Benchmark Overview OLTP-2
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=e6f7a4c9-aff6-4598-b199-836053214d3f
SAP SD
http://www.sap.com/benchmark
Benchmark overview SAP SD
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=0a1e69a6-e366-4fd1-a1a6-0dd93148ea10
SPECcpu2006
http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2006
Benchmark overview SPECcpu2006
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=1a427c16-12bf-41b0-9ca3-4cc360ef14ce
Page 43 (44)
Version: 1.1  2016-09-08
STREAM
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/
TPC-E
http://www.tpc.org/tpce
Benchmark Overview TPC-E
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=da0ce7b7-3d80-48cd-9b3a-d12e0b40ed6d
VMmark V2
Benchmark Overview VMmark V2
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=2b61a08f-52f4-4067-bbbf-dc0b58bee1bd
VMmark V2
http://www.vmmark.com
vServCon
Benchmark Overview vServCon
http://docs.ts.fujitsu.com/dl.aspx?id=b953d1f3-6f98-4b93-95f5-8c8ba3db4e59
Contact
FUJITSU
Website: http://www.fujitsu.com/
PRIMERGY Product Marketing
mailto:Primergy-PM@ts.fujitsu.com
PRIMERGY Performance and Benchmarks
mailto:primergy.benchmark@ts.fujitsu.com
© Copyright 2016 Fujitsu Technology Solutions. Fujitsu and the Fujitsu logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Fujitsu Limited in Japan and other
countries. Other company, product and service names may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. Technical data subject to
modification and delivery subject to availability. Any liability that the data and illustrations are complete, actual or correct is excluded. Designations may be
trademarks and/or copyrights of the respective manufacturer, the use of which by third parties for their own purposes may infringe the rights of such owner.
For further information see http://www.fujitsu.com/fts/resources/navigation/terms-of-use.html
2016-09-08 WW EN
Page 44 (44)

Performance Report PRIMERGY RX4770 M3

Transcription

Similar documents

Family Budget Form

Best Practices

XDNet and ACI HPC Update - CASC | The Coalition for Academic

MADE FOR WALKING

The Netpix Controller Series by eyevis: High

Created in 2006 by sound engineers, of various